Roger's Non-USENET Questions

Roger Balettie wrote:

If you can answer the five questions at the bottom of
the above-referenced webpage

You are fully aware that my website has always served the sole purpose
of *previewing* my book, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L. Furthermore, I
made you well aware long ago that I would never engage in the website
war which you and Jon Berndt have attempted. My publishing means has
never been such that I could get large distribution of my book prior to
engaging in such a battle, even if I had wanted to -- which I didn't.
That's not my style.

It is my firm belief that you two have resorted to formally trashing my
book with web pages in a manner which is punishable by the courts. It
has been obvious to me and to many others as well that you have been
much more than unethical. As I see it at this point, I have been a
victim of grossly unwarranted damage from your web pages. That damage
has gone far beyond the scope of USENET abuse.

I am an author inextricably involved with Challenger, from well before
the fatal launch. As you know, I began posting here in self defense,
after I had been viciously attacked in sci.space.history by Bob Mosley,
Jim Oberg, and other Oberg "clones" -- well *before* I had ever even
heard of USENET.

As I've often urged you to do in the past, simply "unload" your
questions (as best you know how). Try breaking down your compound
questions into things you can ask me to discuss within a thread, so
that you can more easily see why some questions are loaded. Then ask
sub-questions here from time to time, under your five main
thread-topics where appropriate. Threads here tend to get messy
otherwise, as you well know.

Treat me as an ethical and professional Challenger engineer who did his
best and is still doing his best for our manned space program (rather
than a pathetic old "crank" or "loon" with an oddball family); and
despite your past performance and those of many others here, I will do
my best to give you professional answers, with as little bitterness as
I can muster.

Challenger's Ghost

You may want to read some of those laws you talk about.....The last time I
read an internet law it indicated that no man or woman or business can sue
for libel for information published on the internet. The execption to this
rule is the Child Pornography laws which cover all entities and media types.
You as an individual ENGAGING in this forum are entitled to your OPINION as
are others here within this forum. You are entitled to skirt questions which
you cannot answer or my be incriminating to you. So trashing you and your
book is NOT punishible!


Dave

--
Visit My Site For New Sideshow Releases and Product Reviews!!
--=+=--
http://home.earthlink.net/~alamoscout/tankerspage/

" wrote in message
ups.com...
Roger Balettie wrote:

If you can answer the five questions at the bottom of
the above-referenced webpage

You are fully aware that my website has always served the sole purpose
of *previewing* my book, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L. Furthermore, I
made you well aware long ago that I would never engage in the website
war which you and Jon Berndt have attempted. My publishing means has
never been such that I could get large distribution of my book prior to
engaging in such a battle, even if I had wanted to -- which I didn't.
That's not my style.

It is my firm belief that you two have resorted to formally trashing my
book with web pages in a manner which is punishable by the courts. It
has been obvious to me and to many others as well that you have been
much more than unethical. As I see it at this point, I have been a
victim of grossly unwarranted damage from your web pages. That damage
has gone far beyond the scope of USENET abuse.

I am an author inextricably involved with Challenger, from well before
the fatal launch. As you know, I began posting here in self defense,
after I had been viciously attacked in sci.space.history by Bob Mosley,
Jim Oberg, and other Oberg "clones" -- well *before* I had ever even
heard of USENET.

As I've often urged you to do in the past, simply "unload" your
questions (as best you know how). Try breaking down your compound
questions into things you can ask me to discuss within a thread, so
that you can more easily see why some questions are loaded. Then ask
sub-questions here from time to time, under your five main
thread-topics where appropriate. Threads here tend to get messy
otherwise, as you well know.

Treat me as an ethical and professional Challenger engineer who did his
best and is still doing his best for our manned space program (rather
than a pathetic old "crank" or "loon" with an oddball family); and
despite your past performance and those of many others here, I will do
my best to give you professional answers, with as little bitterness as
I can muster.

Challenger's Ghost

On 2005-05-01, Tanker wrote:
You may want to read some of those laws you talk about.....The last time I
read an internet law it indicated that no man or woman or business can sue
for libel for information published on the internet. The execption to this
rule is the Child Pornography laws which cover all entities and media types.

Interestingly, this may not be the case.

Let's leave aside the concept that the internet as a whole is legally
construed as a forum on which libel cannot take place - ie, that it is
somehow not considered a form of publishing. I have grave doubts about
whether this is the case, although it is true that what's been published
here is unlikely to cause a court to give a damn.

I'd be quite interested to read said law, if you happen to have a
citation. Are you perhaps thinking of the cases that says an ISP is not
considered to be the publisher of any libellous material?

The problem is fundamentally that the internet - in this case, Usenet -
is *international*. American A can sue American B for libel in pretty
much whatever jurisdiction he wants, since the libel will have permeated
there and *still be libellous*. So an American law, if you're suitably
determined, only means you have to go and file papers elsewhere.

http://www.legalday.co.uk/lexnex/cmck/cmck310103.htm &
http://www.legalday.co.uk/lexnex/sim...kins201202.htm mention a
2002 ruling where an Australian was given leave to sue an American
agency, in an Australian court, for material uploaded in America - it
was available (ie, "published") in Australia, albeit in trivial numbers,
and the defendant had grounds for suing under Australian libel law.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...0894DD4044 82
mentions a case involving the Washington Post being sued in a Toronto
court, by someone who was (at the time) a Guinean citizen resident in
Austria... You get the idea.

Whilst this thread is unlikely to be the sort of thing that would make
it worthwhile bringing suit, it is wise to be aware to - the UK, and
Commonwealth countries generally, have much more favourable laws for
anyone considering themselves defamed than the US does. And this sort of
forum shopping is already reasonably well-established amongst
high-profile cases in the print media...

--
-Andrew Gray

The threat of lawsuit on usenet is almost as laughable as the threat of an
ass-whuppin'. I remember some clown threatening to sue me because I called
his crop-circle research "junk science". I'm still waiting for the papers,
5 years later.

On Sun, 1 May 2005 08:09:13 -0500, Andrew Gray wrote
(in article ):


On 2005-05-01, Tanker wrote:
You may want to read some of those laws you talk about.....The last time I
read an internet law it indicated that no man or woman or business can sue
for libel for information published on the internet. The execption to this
rule is the Child Pornography laws which cover all entities and media
types.

Interestingly, this may not be the case.

Let's leave aside the concept that the internet as a whole is legally
construed as a forum on which libel cannot take place - ie, that it is
somehow not considered a form of publishing. I have grave doubts about
whether this is the case, although it is true that what's been published
here is unlikely to cause a court to give a damn.

(Snipped rest of interesting discussion).

The most important rules lay-persons need to remember about American
defamation law are these: you can't defame the dead and truth is an
absolute defense to libel.

--
Herb Schaltegger, GPG Key ID: BBF6FC1C
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, 1759
http://www.individual-i.com/

On 2005-05-01, Tim K. wrote:

The threat of lawsuit on usenet is almost as laughable as the threat of an
ass-whuppin'. I remember some clown threatening to sue me because I called
his crop-circle research "junk science". I'm still waiting for the papers,
5 years later.

I forgot to mention my Sekrit Conspiracy to encourage people to bring
frivolous lawsuits. Judges need light relief, too... ;-)

In all seriousness, though, it is something people should be aware of;
there's a hell of a lot of boundaries which haven't been determined yet,
and a lot of misapprehensions over what the old boundaries ever were.

Not that there's ever much risk of a suit coming out of usenet, but...

--
-Andrew Gray

On 2005-05-01, Herb Schaltegger
wrote:

The most important rules lay-persons need to remember about American
defamation law are these: you can't defame the dead and truth is an
absolute defense to libel.

Of course, whilst it's easy to check they're dead, it can sometimes be
difficult to ensure the latter part... and adding that one embellishing
detail on the grounds it seems as true as the rest, well, that has the
potential to bring the whole lot crashing down on your head.

So the existence of an absolute defence can be a bit of a double-edged
sword.

--
-Andrew Gray

On Sun, 1 May 2005 08:39:42 -0500, Herb Schaltegger wrote
(in article ):

The most important rules lay-persons need to remember about American
defamation law are these: you can't defame the dead and truth is an
absolute defense to libel.

Let me clarify that last bit: truth is an absolute defense to
defamation, whether libel (written) or slander (verbal). That being
said, speaking the truth can still get you in trouble in certain
instances: invasion of privacy, copyright violation, trade secrets,
etc.

Laws vary by jurisdiction, of course, but I can say that I've never
seen much of anything on Usenet that would survive a motion to dismiss
or a motion for summary judgment in my state, ghostly whining to the
contrary notwithstanding.
--
Herb Schaltegger, GPG Key ID: BBF6FC1C
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, 1759
http://www.individual-i.com/

Herb Schaltegger wrote:

Laws vary by jurisdiction, of course, but I can say that I've never
seen much of anything on Usenet that would survive a motion to
dismiss or a motion for summary judgment in my state, ghostly whining
to the contrary notwithstanding.

My initial (and only other) message in this thread clearly
differentiates between USENET abuse and widespread copyright violation
via more readily searchable web pages:

"It is my firm belief that you two have resorted to formally trashing
my book with web pages in a manner which is punishable by the courts."

"As I see it at this point, I have been a victim of grossly
unwarranted damage from your web pages."

One thing you're good at is twisting and misrepresenting things. If you
consider that ability a plus in your profession, so be it.

Challenger's Ghost

" wrote:

Herb Schaltegger wrote:

Laws vary by jurisdiction, of course, but I can say that I've never
seen much of anything on Usenet that would survive a motion to
dismiss or a motion for summary judgment in my state, ghostly whining
to the contrary notwithstanding.

My initial (and only other) message in this thread clearly
differentiates between USENET abuse and widespread copyright violation
via more readily searchable web pages:

"It is my firm belief that you two have resorted to formally trashing
my book with web pages in a manner which is punishable by the courts."

"As I see it at this point, I have been a victim of grossly
unwarranted damage from your web pages."

Just because you think something doesn't mean that you aren't in
self-deception.

One thing you're good at is twisting and misrepresenting things. If you
consider that ability a plus in your profession, so be it.

So now you're dishing out abuse.